Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment In Alapan Bandyopadhyay's Plea Challenging CAT's Order Transferring His Case To Delhi From Kolkata

In his plea filed through Advocate Kunal Mimani, Bandyopadhyay states that the impugned order was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play as he was not even granted a right to file its written objections to the Transfer Petition.

Bhatt argued that the matter was transferred on the very first day and no effective or proper hearing was given to them. This was also said to be in violation of Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Further, he stated that the impugned order is passed in complete violation of Rule 6(2) of the CAT Rules, 1987 which provides that a person who has ceased to be in service (in this case by reason of retirement), may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application.

Thus, it was contended that since Bandyopadhyay is a retired official, he was rightfully entitled to exercise his rights in the OA filed before CAT Kolkata bench. It was highlighted that Bandyopadhyay was an officer of the West Bengal cadre, he served there since inception until retirement, and has always lived in West Bengal. Bhatt insisted that convenience of the officer (over convenience of the Central Government) is a primary consideration when transfer sought.

He submitted that the Union of India is based in Delhi is not a valid ground to transfer the case there since it has ample resources at its disposal to represent itself in any part of the country, especially in a case registered in a metropolitan city, Kolkata.

Next, it was argued that the alleged cause of action arose in West Bengal and the impugned order gives no reason as to on what grounds the case has been transferred.

Lastly, he contended that the Union of India has no jurisdiction to institute displicnary proceedings since Bandyopadhyay is an officer serving in the West Bengal cadre since inception, and the charge sheet has been issued by an incompetent authority, with malafide motive.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on the other hand argued that Section 25 of the 1985 Act, which relates to power of Chairman to transfer cases, is a very wide power. It states:

On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as he may desire to be heard, or on his own motion, without such notice, the Chairman may transfer any case pending before one Bench, for disposal, to any other Bench.

"Please see the width of powers. Notice is not even relevant. These are very wide powers, akin to the master of roster power," the SG said.

He added that the Supreme Court has held in 2020 17 SCC 602 that this power of transfer is an administrative power.  Thus, he contended that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the impugned order. It can only assess the decision making process but, cannot reappreciate the decision itself. "Reasons given by the Chairman will not be re-appreciated as if its an appealable order," the SG said.

He added that contrary to what the petitioner has claimed, the impugned order categorically records an observation that opportunity of hearing was given. Further, the SG said that the Chairman has given detailed reasons for transfer.

Next, the SG contended that it is settled jurisprudence that convenience of one party being an officer is completely irrelevant, though it may be one of the considerations.

Lastly, he stated that the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner would be matter of argument before the CAT.

The facts of the case revolved around disciplinary proceedings initiated against Bandyopadhyay on his failure to attend a review meeting chaired by the Prime Minister of India for assessing the loss of life and damage to infrastructure caused by the cyclone 'YAAS'.

The High Court had allowed the writ petition by holding that a part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction and hence it had jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar had then set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court by holding that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to set aside the transfer order passed by CAT Principal Bench at New Delhi

It declared that the High Court at Calcutta had usurped its jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and hence declared its order void ab initio and continued to set it aside.

However, the Apex Court gave liberty to the respondent to challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal before the High Court that had the territorial jurisdiction on the same.

Therefore, the petition was filed in the Delhi High Court. Earlier, Justice Talwant Singh had recused from hearing the plea.

Case Title: Alapan Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.